The call for
the restoration of the church has been sounding in certain portions of this
country for well over 200 years. The word “restore” means “to bring back;
reinstate.” To call for the restoration of the Lord’s church is to suggest that
there is something lacking that needs to be brought back, that something has
been left behind and needs to be reinstated. Ultimately any restoration that
takes place will do so congregationally as the Lord’s church has no earthly
head to oversee the entirety of the brotherhood. It will happen as
congregations (in particular, the saints who comprise them) examine themselves
and restore or reinstate those things that are lacking.
In this
post I want to consider a question: if the call to restore the church is
still valid today (and I believe it most certainly is), then to what are we to
restore the church to? I believe that this is an important question based upon
the comments made by brethren from time to time. To what should the church be
restored?
The church of the 1950’s and 60’s? I
occasionally hear brethren, particularly older brethren who lived during those
times, speaking of the church in those days wistfully. One brother spoke of those years as the golden age of debaters among the
brotherhood. I own several debate books from those years and can see exactly
what he means. So many men were set for the defense of the gospel and were able
to defend it ably. There is much to commend in that as it follows the
instruction of Jude 3.
An older
preacher of my acquaintance speaks of those days with great sadness. He refers
to them as the decades of division, lamenting the fact that so many of the
fights of those years were between brethren. He recalls the number of
congregations that divided over disagreements concerning the use of the
treasury and other issues. Tears fill his eyes as he speaks of those days.
Those who were
active during the 50’s and 60’s speak of the good that was done then. They also
speak of much that was not good. Regardless, the church was not established in
the 1950’s or 60’s in America. While there are lessons to be learned from those
years, good and bad, why should we seek to restore the church to a period many
centuries after its inception and
partly remembered for division?
The church of the “restoration era” from
the late 1700’s through the early 1900’s? One of my hobbies is studying
this particular era. I firmly believe today’s church owes a debt of thanks to
men like Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, Barton W. Stone,
“Raccoon” John Smith, Jacob Creath, Moses Lard, Benjamin Franklin, David
Lipscomb and many others. The courage these men demonstrated, particularly the
first five mentioned, in casting aside denominational presuppositions to
objectively examine Scripture is commendable. To take it a step further and
break with the denominations to try and be the church they read about in
Scripture is inspiring. I suggest you read about this period yourself and be
strengthened and encouraged by their example.
However, many
of these men continued to cling to various denominational constructs. Some of
them fought doggedly to incorporate “innovations” into the worship service and
to add institutions unknown to Holy Scripture. The vitriol they occasionally
spewed against their opponents, who were often their own brethren, is simply
shocking.
There was much
good accomplished in those years and many fine examples to follow. There was
also a great deal of error and anger to avoid. Besides that, the church was
established long before the days of the men mentioned above. There must be no
call to restore the church to a period several centuries after its birth.
The church of the first century? This
is the correct answer, right? After all, many times when people speak of
restoring the church they include “to the church of the first century” at
the end of the statement. The church was established in the first century so
the early church was certainly in the correct timeframe. But let me ask this
question: were any of the congregations to whom Paul wrote (Corinth, Galatia,
Ephesus, etc.) perfect? The church at Rome had a problem with hypocritical judgment
(Romans 2:1-5, 17-24). The church at Corinth struggled with a myriad of problems
(1 and 2 Corinthians). The church at Galatia was on the verge of open apostasy
(Galatians 1:6-9; 3:1-3). The church at Ephesus seems to have struggled with
relations between Jew and Gentile Christians as well as godly conduct
(Ephesians 2:11-22; 4:1, 17-32). Eventually Jesus accused them of abandoning
their first love (Revelation 2:4-5). The church in Philippi had two prominent
members engaged in some sort of conflict with each other (Philippians 4:2). The
church at Collosae seems to have struggled with the pagan philosophies of the
day (Colossians 2:8). James saw all sorts of problems among first century
Christians and hits them very hard in his letter. The Hebrew writer fought to
prevent his brethren from going off into apostasy and scolded them for not
being as mature as they should have been (Hebrews 5:11-14). If it is reasonable
to assume that at least some of the
instruction in righteous living found throughout the epistles is there to
correct what was lacking then it is easy to see that first century Christians
struggled with exactly the same things we struggle with now.
The point is
this: the aim of every saint who makes up every congregation ought to be
perfection (complete maturity). The church of the first century fell short of
that mark time and again. So much of what we know about the church and the
Christian life we’ve learned from the writing of inspired men correcting the
mistakes of the first century church. Might I suggest that we can, and should,
aim even higher than trying to be like the first century congregations?
The ideal church described in the New Testament.
Just here we find what should be at the heart of every call for restoration.
Where the churches in the cities mentioned previously fell short we can resolve
not to. We can look at the instruction given them and determine to follow it in
ways they did not. When they did
follow it and were commended for so doing we can learn from their example and
do what they did, not because a congregation in the first century did it, but
because they were approved for being the ideal church in their doing.
Brethren, the
wonderful thing about the ideal church described in the New Testament is that
it is absolutely timeless. Where any one of the earliest congregations was
commended for following the pattern we know we please God in doing the same
thing in 2014. The teaching and activities of the ideal church never go out of
style, nor do they lose their power. They are timeless in ever sense of that
word and we only do well when we
cling to them today.
A final word on restoring the church. I
believe with all my heart that the forms of worship have been completely
restored today. I believe our activities in worship are
precisely those of the ideal church described in the New Testament. The heart
is the thing that will forever require restoration. As long as sin continues in
our lives, though rare it may be, it is a constant reminder that there is more
work to be done. If the worship assembly occasionally becomes a “going through
the motions” activity, we are reminded that restoration needs to occur. Let us
guard our heart, brethren (Proverbs 4:23).
The call to
restore will always be valid. Let us ensure that the aim of such restoration is
toward that which is timeless.
